Understanding Sharia Law: Conservatives’ Skewed Interpretation Needs Debunking
Matthew Duss and Wajahat Ali have published a report for the Center of American Progress aimed at disproving current trends in the popular understanding of law in Islam. It takes a look at arguments from conservative pundits and analysts who say that extremists are using Shari’a to transform the United States into an Islamic State.
This trend, supported by an earlier report from the Centre for Security Policy (CSP), is so pervasive that Republicans in 13 states are now considering the adoption of legislation forbidding Shari’a. But both Duss and Ali argue that:
The [CSP] authors, in attempting to show that Sharia is a threat, construct a static, a historical, and unscholarly interpretation of Sharia that is divorced from traditional understandings and commentaries of the source texts.
The “Sharia threat” argument is based on an extreme type of scripturalism where one pulls out verses from a sacred text and argues that believers will behave according to that text. But this argument ignores how believers themselves understand and interpret that text over time. […]
In reality, Sharia is personal religious law and moral guidance for the vast majority of Muslims. Muslim scholars historically agree on certain core values of Sharia, which are theological and ethical and not political. Moreover, these core values are in harmony with the core values at the heart of America.
In Egypt’s Democracy, Room for Islam
Ali Gomaa, Grand Mufti of Egypt, has an op-ed in the New York Times discussing the role that religion can have in Egypt’s new political life. In light of the recent referendum approving constitutional amendments, Gomaa focuses in on Article 2 of the constitution — which includes legislating Islam as the state religion and shari’a as the principal source of legislation — and argues that there is no conflict between this and Article 7 of Egypt’s interim constitution, which guarantees equal citizenship before the law regardless of religion, race or creed.
While Article 2 was not a focus of debate during the referendum, perhaps he is suggesting that it should become an issue for the forthcoming, more comprehensive constitutional reforms:
Similarly, long-suppressed Islamist groups can no longer be excluded from political life. All Egyptians have the right to participate in the creation of a new Egypt, provided that they respect the basic tenets of religious freedom and the equality of all citizens. To protect our democracy, we must be vigilant against any party whose platform or political rhetoric threatens to incite sectarianism, a prohibition that is enshrined in law and in the Constitution. […]
Indeed, democracy will put Islamist movements to the test; they must now put forward programs and a political message that appeal to the Egyptian mainstream. Any drift toward radicalism will not only run contrary to the law, but will also guarantee their political marginalization.
Noah Feldman in Unwelcome: The Muslims Next Door
CNN has aired a short documentary called, “Unwelcome: The Muslims Next Door.” This documentary covers the recent Islamic Center of Murfreesboro controversy – in which the Muslim community received overwhelming opposition, including a lawsuit, to their county approval to build a new 53,000 square foot Islamic center.
At the 32:00 minute-mark, Noah Feldman, professor of law at Harvard University, defines shari’a law and discusses its role in America.
The program can be viewed in its entirety on YouTube:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRlqz3e9OrA]